skevinp

I will watch every show, I will leave it at that. Whether live or on Flo, said the cat in the hat.

And based on recent events, it now appears that, where DCI is concerned, common sense and common decency cannot be assumed in the rendering of such a determination.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it is difficult to conceive of any reasonable scenario in which he could be innocent of all claims by all people. Rich and famous people are falsely accused sometimes, as there are so many people who know them the odds are greater that someone will do so, and there are financial incentives for accusing them, and their fame makes them vulnerable and eager to settle. But GH isn't really rich and has no fame outside this very small community. The number of accusers is huge considering the small number of people in the world who know who he is and consider him to be significant. People are also falsely accused sometimes for political reasons, including not only powerful figures that people want to bring down but also ordinary people caught in the crossfire or people around whom a false narrative can be built to push an agenda or help a prosecutor build his reputation. One could argue agendas are involved here, and they may have even played a role in bringing things to light, but that does not explain away the large number of accusers who have told credible stories. DA's are not always honest and neither is the media, but in this case there is not that much of an incentive for either to be dishonest. And it is very difficult to believe that all of these women, some of whom have shared things very personal and painful and exposed their identities in ways that subject them to backlash, are somehow making all this up. Occam's razor is not on his side.

Am I the only one who thinks of this song when an NFL official comes out to deliver the ruling on a pass play? The receiver got his left foot in, but left his right foot out. He had possession of the ball but then he shook it all about. Incomplete pass, second down.

As for civil liability, depending on whose version of the facts is correct, I would think either DCI or Lotz could make a claim for defamation regarding public statements as to whether DCI offered Arsenal the opportunity to correct the issue, and whether their leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward, before making the decision. I doubt legal action would be in the interest of either party, however.

Why don't you just make it your signature? Then you won't have to re-type it every time.

The irony of this position, should DCI choose to take it, will not be lost on anyone who remembers their stated support of whistleblowers.

Was he not the recipient of those emails?

I don't see how any rational, fair-minded person could read this objectively and conclude that HE was the one not willing to work with THEM. ------------------ January 14th 4:38pm: Receive email from Dave Eddleman, the Open Class Coordinator, notifying Arsenal of Suspension 6:11pm: I respond via email to Dave. I state that I am willing to take the post down, but ask for the terms of the suspension. 6:21pm Opting to move quicker than email, I call Dave. Dave instructs me to email Dan Acheson as he does not have the details to the suspension. We do not discuss removing the offending post. 8:13pm I email Dan Acheson, requesting the terms of the suspension. January 15th 9:17:am: Having received no response, I email Dan Acheson again. 12:14pm: I call Dan Acheson's desk at DCI, having gotten his number from another DCI employee. I leave a message on his voicemail. 12:40pm: I receive an email response from Dan Acheson, notifying me of the policy I broke and declaring that Arsenal's 2019 OC application has been suspended, but that we can re-apply for 2020. ------- It sounds like he basically asked if they wanted him to take it down, and they refused to talk to him about it, ignoring his communications multiple times electing instead to suspend the corps' application without ever clarifying beforehand whether they wanted him to take it down or discussing the matter with him or working with him at all. I realize there could be more to the story, but if you are going to base your condemnations of a human being based on his own words, please be decent enough to construe them objectively and rationally.

He said why he didn't and it in no way indicates an unwillingness to work with them. If anything it sounds like he was trying to find out what they wanted him to do.

If so their rush to a conclusion that so negatively impacted the people in their charge showed a remarkable lack of judgment and/or concern as far as I can see. I'm hoping there is a more forgivable explanation.

Here is the whole timeline, from Spenser Lotz's facebook, with emphasis added: January 14th 4:38pm: Receive email from Dave Eddleman, the Open Class Coordinator, notifying Arsenal of Suspension 6:11pm: I respond via email to Dave. I state that I am willing to take the post down, but ask for the terms of the suspension. 6:21pm Opting to move quicker than email, I call Dave. Dave instructs me to email Dan Acheson as he does not have the details to the suspension. We do not discuss removing the offending post. 8:13pm I email Dan Acheson, requesting the terms of the suspension. January 15th 9:17:am: Having received no response, I email Dan Acheson again. 12:14pm: I call Dan Acheson's desk at DCI, having gotten his number from another DCI employee. I leave a message on his voicemail. 12:40pm: I receive an email response from Dan Acheson, notifying me of the policy I broke and declaring that Arsenal's 2019 OC application has been suspended, but that we can re-apply for 2020. 3:00pm: I formally issue my resignation. January 16th: 11:21 pm: DCI issues an official statement regarding the suspension, in which they fraudulently claim that they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward." I want to clarify; at no point did DCI make such an offer. They did not discuss Arsenal issuing an apology, or removing the post. Although I initially stated that I would remove the post, I did not because I was looking for clarification from DCI and because I understood that removing the post at that point would be a meaningless gesture as it had already been shared over four different social media platforms by a variety of drum corps influencers.

That is in no way a refusal. It does not even say they told him to take it down, but that he offered to do so, and then sought their input to ensure he knew what they wanted him to do. For all he may have known, they might have said not to, as that might have understood that taking it down could cast DCI in a bad light.

Please provide evidence of this "refusal".

DCI in its statement said they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward". However, I am unaware of any evidence they have offered to back that up, or even any details of what and how they communicated, what the response was, etc. that would bolster the credibility of their claim. Perhaps we will get that if they ever release, in the future, the statement they promised to release yesterday.